Advertisement

My Research Journey

  • Diane CharlesonEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Filmmaking as research has emerged recently as a subset of the broader category of research that has practice at its core. In this chapter, I contextualize the historical emergence of such research and the various definitions that have been proffered to define this. Practitioners have increasingly found themselves working in a university setting where they need to produce impact research and in so doing need to define their work in this context. The rigor around such definitions has resulted from a need by practitioners to position their practical research outputs in relation to more traditional research outputs. In light of this, I proceed to discuss how I have journeyed through this process as a filmmaking researcher and investigate the reasons I have come to adopt the methodologies that I use, particularly, autoethnography. In order to do this, I explore my journey from practitioner to researcher and how this has emerged and developed.

Bibliography

  1. Anderson, Leon. “Analytic Autoethnography.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35, no. 4 (2006): 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris, Chris, and Donald Schön. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness, 224. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.Google Scholar
  3. Batty, Craig, and Marsha Berry. “Constellations and Connections: The Playful Space of the Creative Practice Research Degree.” Journal of Media Practice 16, no. 3 (2015): 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batty, Craig, and Susan Kerrigan. Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, Marsha. Creating with Mobile Media. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.Google Scholar
  6. Brabazon, Tara, and Zeynep Dagli. “Putting the Doctorate into Practice, and the Practice into Doctorates: Creating a New Space for Quality Scholarship Through Creativity (Report).” Nebula 7, no. 1–2 (2010): 23.Google Scholar
  7. Candy, Linda. Practice Based Research: A Guide. Sydney: Creativity and Cognition Studios Report. Sydney: University of Sydney, 2006.Google Scholar
  8. Clandinin, D. Jean. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Denzin, Norman K., and Michael D. Giardina. Qualitative Inquiry and the Conservative Challenge. Walnut Creek, CA and London: Troika Distributor, 2006.Google Scholar
  10. Eaves, Sally. “From Art for Arts Sake to Art as Means of Knowing: A Rationale for Advancing Arts-Based Methods.” ISSUU. Accessed November 10, 2018. https://issuu.com/academic-conferences.org/docs/ejbrm-volume12-issue2-article388.
  11. Haraway, Donna. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (1988): 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris, Anne. Writing for Performance. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2016.Google Scholar
  13. Haseman, Bradley C. “A Manifesto for Performative Research.” Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy 118, no. 1 (2016): 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holman Jones, Stacy. Handbook of Autoethnography. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge, 2016.Google Scholar
  15. Holman Jones, Stacy. “Creative Selves/Creative Cultures: Critical Autoethnography, Performance, and Pedagogy.” In Creative Selves/Creative Cultures: Critical Autoethnography, Performance, and Pedagogy, edited by Stacy Holman Jones and Marc Pruyn, 3–20. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. Google Scholar
  16. Kerrigan, Susan. “A ‘Logical’ Explanation of Screen Production as Method-Led Research.” In Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry, edited by Craig Batty and Susan Kerrigan, 11–27. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018.Google Scholar
  17. Lillis, Theresa, Jennifer McMullan, and Jackie Tuck. “Gender and Academic Writing.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 32 (2018): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mansfield, Nick. Subjectivity: Theories of the Self from Freud to Haraway. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. Milech, Barbara H., and Ann Schilo. “‘Exit Jesus’: Relating the Exegesis and Creative/Production Components of a Research Thesis.” Text. http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue3/milechschilo.htm.
  20. Richardson, Laurel. Writing Strategies Reaching Diverse Audiences. Newbury Park: Sage, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. Scrivener, Stephen. The Art Does Not Embody a Form of Knowledge. UAL. Accessed December 10, 2018. http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/783/.
  22. Schön, Donald. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, Hazel, and Rogert T. Dean. Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  24. Tripp, David. Critical Incidents in Teaching: Developing Professional Judgement. Milton Park, UK: Routledge, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts (Media)Australian Catholic UniversityFitzroyAustralia

Personalised recommendations